Slartibartfast

For the record I don't in anyway blame MN for the content of his speech, I think the content would have been agreed by consensus. I accept that in trying to highlight where we could have done better my focus was on Mark's speech but that was not intended to be a criticism or an expression of a lack of confidence in him. My intention was to highlight the content not the person. My comments were made to highlight how I felt the club should do something better. I do not expect or care if Mark is an "entertainer" and I take issue with Dandeeman's continual reference to "sensative information" which I've been at pains to say should not be the content. Dandeeman you seem to think I had a motive to attack Neeld. I didn't. I was making observations on how the night could have been done better. It lacked footy content and Mark was the only footy person who spoke - hence the focus of my comments.

I think you might have misread my post or alternatively I've expressed myself very poorly. I'll leave it there. We just differ.

That's why I looked forward to this event. I wanted more than I got at the B&F and the other speeches I've heard Neeld make. You and I won't agree on this but I'm not asking for "family jewels". What sort of players do MFC think are at risk with FA? Marquee players, fringe players, role players? What are some examples (and he could use other clubs). What are the issues with the CP. What are the options - mature players, ND picks, a mixture? That's just informative and that's what I hoping for. I don't expect a discussion on players or an explanation as to why Jordie Gysberts and Tom McDonald have had such little senior exposure. I don't want a run down on Liam Jurrah. But surely in footy and around our club there is enough to talk about other than the same old same old "we want to be elite and we'll leave no stone unturned". I've heard that from 1997 to now. If that's the message then I agree, don't bother saying it and if you aren't going to say anything interesting don't get up there and speak. And don't call it a "commencement dinner" when all you do is look back.

Wishing him all the best: Article MFC website today: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/130687/default.aspx

In my list of topics I'd be surprised if there aren't enough there to fill 10 mimutes without ramping up expectations. Free Agency and the CP competing strategies would do it and that discussion has nothing to do with expectation for the year.

That's fine, you just don't go. I like footy information and that's what I expected last night. There wasn't any.

I'd have liked some comment on the game plan, not chapter and verse. A quick outline on its core characteristics and how long he expects our players to be able to implement it. I'd like some indication of his expectation of the year. What are some of his KPI's. How does he view the list, areas of strength and weakness. Which players he sees as having an impact this year. How Jack Viney is going. How about an explanation of the "Gap Year" initiative, why it was done, what the benefits would be and what the downsides are. How about a discussion over the activation of the CP which will be public in 5 days anyway. What are they thinking, what are the competing strategies and what are the objectives with the CP. How about the relationship between Casey and MFC, how closely will Brett Lovett work with MFC, what are Casey's priorities. What about the issues of list management this year with up to three 1st rounders available. What about some details in what extra work the players have been doing over preseason. What about a comment on how long the "new" PS regime will take to "build" AFL footballers. How about a view of the impact of free agency? How about standing up the MM and WC on their comments on Watts. Hell, that's just off the top of my head. I don't want "inside" detail but some thoughts on the issues. It's a football night about the coming season but that seemed to be a taboo topic All I got was "we want to be elite". I've heard that for far too long and it means, as you say, diddly squat. If the MFC want to make a franchise night of this they will have to offer more because if I wasn't entitled to go because of my player sponsor involvement I would have been very disappointed with the content and wouldn't consider going next year. In the end it's a fundraiser, you've got to give a little to get a lot. $195 a head is not value based on what was offered last night.

I couldn't agree more. The highlight of the night for me was Cam Schwab's address which was quite moving. The majority of the night focused on our past and if you were in a nostalgic mood it was ok but for a "Commencement" dinner nothing was said of the coming season. Nothing. Even Neeld's speech talked of the NAB cup and the preseason but I really didn't learn anything and I got no insight about what to expect. For a dinner called "Commencement" it missed the mark. I think our football club has a disproportionate focus on the past. We continually hear from past greats, we are continually reminded that we are the oldest footy club in the world and we are continually reminded of how great we were. I think it's time to focus more on this group and what we think we can achieve. I want to hear about the future. Even the blazer is a replica of those of the 1940's, that's 70 years ago. Are we a modern progressive club or one at the cutting edge of the future. Last night would have had you wondering. There were no player interviews, there was no word from our captains, there were no insights from the coaching staff and I can't remember a laugh. All up a flat night. Enjoy the watch RobbieF. Player sponsors didn't get it "free" by the way, it's part of a package for which we pay a reasonable amount of money.

Guys if you want to discuss the general problem of indigenous Australians please do so on the General forum. All posts addressing this issue will be deleted from now on. Thanks

I've PM'd you Benny. Hope my explanation makes sense.

Olisik and Benny you've had your say. Others have had a chance to respond. Please leave the personal stuff out of it. There is enough stuff on this issue that it needs no further comment. Use the "Like This" button if you want to add your support for a view. As Whispering Jack has said this is a very sensitive issue and the mods will take a very hard line both to keep the discussion civil and avoid any legal implications. Anyone stepping too far off course will be banned with a no tolerance policy. Please respect the situation guys. Fan

Everyone's had their say, I'm locking this thread and will reopen it when the situation is clearer. Let's hope for the best possible outcome.

I agree. Two were great footballers and one was ok. I like Matthews as a commentator, Malthouse is an agenda driven jerk but he's interesting to listen to and I don't listen to Carey. But "not knowing them personally" doesn't preclude them from a "like" opinion. Matthews was a thug, Malthouse is a very ordinary individual (calling Maric a cheat, running his own agenda last year to the detriment of Collingwoods flag chances) and Carey hasn't done much to endear him to the public. I think Matthews has grown up and regrets his on field antics. Malthouse is just a terrible man imo. What do you think of Gillard? (for others, this is rhetorical).

As footballers or people?

Please use the Sylvia thread. Thanks

It will be terrific until Collingwood decide that the Queen's Birthday game should be shared.

You're pulling my leg.

Oh dear. I'm not having a crack at Tynan at all, I liked what I saw and I said that in both posts. But I was trying to add balance because those that didn't see the game may well think he beat his opponent and is pushing for a best 22 spot which I doubt. That's no criticism, just fact, and like you I hope Blease embarrasses many a defender this year. Tynan was brave, confident and seemed to know where to go to accumulate the ball. He seems an excellent pick up for someone in the 50's in a supposedly weak draft and continues Barry Prendergasts ability to spot talent. The Godfrey reference was merely to point out that "having a crack" alone does not make a footballer good. Hope that clears it up. Just to restate for those who might have missed it - I like Tynan.

Simon Goddfrey was a real goer as well. I liked what I saw but for those that weren't there they need to understand that he didn't actually beat his man, in fact he was well beaten.

I was impressed with Tynan but I was much more impressed with his opponent, Sam Blease who led him a merry dance for much of the day.

So would you rather people didn't post on training on the basis they don't know the full training program of each player? People are good enough to report what they see and then offer opinions and I thank them for it.

It's funny isn't it that we are now starting to get good reports about Cook and Morton, two who came in for a fair bit of criticism prior to the match practice. The good reports about these two plus the fact Jordie McK and Tappy are approaching full training is good news.

Nice to see Cale mentioned as our best in the Age article today and by the review in the training report. It's clearly not definitive and I'm not celebrating but it's a lot better than a negative report.

I think everyone has had a chance to put their spin on this topic. Thanks for your input, thread locked. Cheers Fan

And furthermore RR four years ago Warnock would have been a regular (he was top 10 B&F at least once) and Martin a key position defender. Thomo you're quite correct that McDonald and Davis aren't proven but I can't remember having had two better prospect other than Frawley and Garland and these forums wrote both those players off. Your clearly not old enough to remember the bad times. I wish I had that advantage.